JOHN FELDSTED: Civil legal proceedings have many aspects, and one is for a court to offer mediation between parties if mediation is possible
Wilson-Raybould directive to Justice Department
staff raises alarm ... instructed Justice Department lawyers not to
aggressively fight claims brought by Indigenous groups against the federal
government
By Brian Giesbrecht ~~ Frontier Centre for Public Policy ~~ March 20, 2019
Since former Justice minister and attorney general
Jody Wilson-Raybould’s dramatic testimony before a committee of the House of
Commons, followed by the testimony of Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick, much
attention has been paid to SNC-Lavalin and the questionable behaviour of Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau.
Mostly missed were the last words of Privy Council clerk Michael
Wernick’s prepared opening statement to the same Justice committee.
... Wernick’s
surprising disclosure raises immediate concern with respect to the recent
Restoule treaties annuities case in Ontario. That case ended in a decision that
will, if not upset on appeal, eventually cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
The
directive raised concerns for who? It is alarming to who?
 |
|
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Cabinet
ministers meet with leaders of National
Indigenous Organizations in Ottawa -- 2016
|
Why
would a government committed to indigenous reconciliation engage in
“aggressively fighting claims brought by Indigenous groups against the federal
government”?
Why
would the Indigenous Affairs Department continue to treat Indigenous people as
enemies or as people who should meekly accept its dictates?
Civil
legal proceedings have many aspects, and one is for a court to offer mediation
between parties if mediation is possible. There are many shades of grey between
aggressive defense and capitulation. It is not an all or nothing process.
I fail
to understand why appealing a lower court decision on sound points of law could
be defined as ‘aggressive’?
Appeals are a necessary part of our legal system to
ensure that we ‘get it right’; otherwise, we risk lower court decisions of
dubious value setting precedents.
The
article raises many questions -- and answers none. It highlights the necessity
of separating the justice process from political considerations and indicates
that our government finds itself embroiled in a series of internal conflicts
that are serving no one.
The
concept of reconciliation between our government, and indigenous people, is a
worthy goal. It appears we have made a commitment to reconciliation without a
sound plan to achieve the goal. That is not acceptable or in the interests of
taxpayers and Canadians.
The
principle of equality before and under the law overrides the special interests
of any group.
John
Feldsted
Political Consultant & Strategist
Winnipeg,
Manitoba
Comments
Post a Comment